On May 7th, an apoplectic CNN attempted to provide cover for Hillary Clinton after her unprovoked assault on 100 million American gun owners. Speaking before the National Council for Behavioral Health, Hillary stated that the nation’s “gun culture” had gotten “way out of balance.” “We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime” added Clinton. “I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“She’s talking in the context of mental health,” claimed CNN talking head John King in the hope of bailing his fellow liberal out of the ofttimes politically fatal quagmire of anti-gun zealotry. After all, who could favor arming the mentally unstable?

But Hillary’s nonsensical claims had nothing to do with the acquisition of firearms by the mentally ill. “At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated,” lamented Clinton. Her concerns obviously revolve around the increasing number of “fully licensed” and “fully validated” gun owners. And that’s a group that certainly doesn’t include the mentally ill!

Not satisfied that she had done enough damage to her chances in 2016, Clinton then claimed that the proliferation of guns “[is] what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control…” This is “…something that we cannot just let go without paying attention,” said Hillary, not only insulting America’s law-abiding gun owners but obviously threatening them with a new round of anti-gun legislation from the federal government.

Yet even more mind-boggling than her sudden decision to declare war on America’s gun owners was Hillary’s laughable claim that she could say all she had and “…still support the right of people to own guns.” Now that’s funny stuff!

As usual, Hillary made statements that cannot be supported by anything even resembling a fact. No, Mrs. Clinton, “anybody” cannot “have a gun anywhere, anytime.” The left made certain of that with the manufacture of killing fields they call “gun free” zones. Also, little in the U.S. is more subject to the “rule of law” than the right to keep and bear arms.

As for “self-control,” Concealed Carry license holders are 3 times less likely to commit a domestic murder with a firearm than are police officers!

But the real question here is why? Why would Hillary believe it a good idea to take up publicly declared residence on the losing side of one of the most polarizing subjects in politics? Trailing Barack Obama in the polls in 2008, Hillary became a sudden convert to the belief that gun ownership was just swell. Speaking of her own experience shooting with her father, Hillary said of gun ownership at the time: “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”

But that tale was no more truthful than her claim to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary–3 years BEFORE he climbed Mt. Everest.

Of course, little that Hillary Clinton has ever said has not been a lie. She is a cold, calculating, political thug who measures the value of things according to their effect on public opinion. So why would she begin an unnecessary war with gun owners? Why provide the eventual Republican opponent with golden opportunities for “Here’s what Hillary really thinks about gun owners” commercials?

It doesn’t make much sense to me.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.